JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY versus DR. K.S. JAWATKAR & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 12-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY 
A 
v. 
DR. K.S. JAWATKAR & ORS. 
MAY 12, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 
B 
'--( 
Jawaharlal Nehru University Act 1966: Section 7-University-
Establishing Centre of Post Graduate Studies at Imphal-Whether a 
member of the teaching staff at Centre can be transferred without his 
consent to the Manipur University. 
~) 
The appellant, Jawaharlal Nehru University Lhad set up a Centre c 
of Post-Graduate Studies at Imphal nnder s. 5(2) of the University Act. 
y The Respondent while he was. working as a temporary research 
Assistant in the School of International Studies of the University was 
offered the post of Associate Fellow at the Centre of Post-graduate 
Studies, Imphal, on ad hoc basis which offer was accepted by him on 3 D 
December, 1973. His term of appointment was extended from time to 
time. On 21st March, 1979 the University offered him the post of 
Assistant Professor in the Political Science Division at the Centre at 
Imphal for ~ period of two years. The respondent joined the post on 29 
' 
August, 1979. Later, he was appointed as such on a regular basis from 
~-
the date of his initial _appointment, and was confirmed with effect from E 
the same date. 
The Centre of Post-graduate Studies at Imphal was to be merged . 
with the Manipur University as provided in the Manipur University 
Act, 1980. On 3 February, 1981 the Syndicate of the Jawaharlal Nehru 
University provided for the transfer of the Centre to the Manipur F 
'~ 
University and resolved that the members of the faculty employed by 
the Jawaharlal Nehru University Centre of Post-graduate Studies, 
Imphal, immediately before its merger into the Manipur University 
would on and from that date become members of the staff of the 
Manipur University. 
G 
The respondent tiled a writ petition in the Delhi High Court 
praying for the quashing of the Resolution of the Jawaharlal Nehru 
'-( 
University whereby his services were transferred to the Manipur Uni-
versity. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that 
the respondent could not be obliged to join the Manipur University, and 
that he was confirmed as Assistant Professor in the employment of the 
H 
273 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
A J awaharlal Nehru University in its Imphal Centre and was entitled to 'y. 
continne in service until he attained the age of 60 years. 
In appeal, the Division Bench upheld the view that the services of 
the respondent could not stand automatically transferred with. the 
Ii\ transfer of the Centre at Imphal, from the Jawaharlal Nehru University 
to the Manipur University. 
y 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The Centre of Post-graduate Studies was set up at 
Imphal as an activity of the appellant-Jawaharlal Nehru University. 
C To give expression to that activity, the University set up and organised 
the Centre at Imphal and appointed teaching and administrative staff to 
man it. Since the Centre represented an activity of the University the 
teaching and administrative staff must be understood as employees of 
the University. [279H; 280A] 
D 
(2) The contract of service entered into by the respondent was a 
contract with the appellant University and no law can convert that 
contract into a contract between the respondent and the Manipur 
University without automatically making it, either e><pressly or by 
necessary implication, subject to the respondent's consent, notwith-
~ standing any statutory provision to that effect whether in the Manipur 
University Act or otherwise. The position of law is clear that no 
employee can be transferred, without his consent, from one employer to 
another. The consent may be express or implied. [280B-C, E] 
(3) The transfer of the Centre of Post-graduate Studies to the 
f 
Manipur University may be regarded as resulting in the abolition of the 
post held by the respondent in the appellant University. In that event, if 
the post held by the respondent is regarded as one of a number of posts 
in a group, the principle "last come, first go" will apply, and someon_e 
junior to the respondent must go. If the post held by him constitutes a 
class by itself, it is possible to say that he is surplus to the requirements 
G of the appellant University and is liable to be retrenched. Since, how-
ever, the respondent has been adjusted against a suitable post in the 
appellant University during the pendency of the litigation, the appellant 
cannot be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.